Disjointed, cliched and forgettable

Rating: Null/10 (5 May 2004)

I first heard about this film via a film magazine, where I was treated to a free mini-dvd containing the first 10 minutes. After watching the entire film, i now know why they chose to entice us with the first 10 minutes - because that was basically the high point of the entire film.
The trouble with this film is the characterisation and script. At the point where the main characters pash (their names are?), i was cringing. The love story is so pathetic and predictable that I felt like flagging the rest of the film...'ok, i'm gonna want to pash someone in the middle of an apocalypse, when we risk attack from zombies at every corner'. They are in fact a neo Adam and Eve , which I felt was not explained properly.
The actors suffer from a stupid, hackneyed script ...the characters are unbelieveable as traumatised individuals, for example, the young woman shouts - "rise and shine sleepyhead". The picnic and supermarket scenes were abolsutely appauling. So, like, the whole human race has only been wiped out by disease, but who cares, lets go whoop it up on supermarket trolleys to a rock soundtrack! The picnic scene is very lame too - so, let's eat and we'll forget all the rubbish that has gone down with one bite of a hamburger! And let's watch the horsies run in the fields and admire their freedom! ggrrrr.... They also wander stupidly around, risking attack from zombies. My friends and I found ourselves yelling at the tv ...this film is indeed fustrating. It implies, with the death of the little girl's father, that she was the only person who suffered the traumatising effects of family loss. In fact, the entire nation/world was supposedly wiped out. Um....
However, what 28 days later benefits from is some stark, disturbing imagery. I felt especially queasy when there is a long shot of the church interior with bodies piled up in the rows. The morning shots of an isolated London are especially praise-worthy.
What I found most irritating however was the apparent lack of sympathy for human life (from the main characters... even though they are tricked by the military personnel, they show no remorse for them when they are subsequently attacked by zombies). For example, the girl pushes the head army officer out of the car into the mass of flesh eaters. This was unnessessary, and gratuitous. The film turns into some gratuitously plotted, girl-power plagued 'Survivor: apocalyptic London'.
I have heard this film described as a fresh take on the zombie genre. Um...yes and no. The first half hour is the only reason why one should watch this film. Ultimately, the plot is disjointed and it feels like the second half is a different cinematic outing altogether. I thought the acting was fine, but the writers didn't exactly give Cillian murphy etc etc much to work with. Filmmakers never seem to learn that A. integrating a stupid romance into an action film will never work ; and B. when they treat us to the predictable demise of lesser characters, it is just plain dumb.
I am glad this film is British, because it would have been absolute rubbish if it been American (no offence to any yankies reading this). Oh, wait, it was a pile of cowpats anyway. I thought one interesting ideological question raised was that of the randy soldiers versus the imprisoned women. There are two females left alive, so the soldiers try to forcibly impregnate them to carry on the human race. This idea should have been examined further.
I've been pretty harsh, so if any of you out there liked this film, i say fair enough..this is just my opinion. Just don't do anything stupid like buy the dvd. You won't be watching it twice.